Making a hash of the drug laws

The government is in a mess over its proposed limits for drug possession. Initial proposals sounded like they would effectively decriminalise small-scale dealing, however the new limits penalise even modest users of different drugs, with dealing charges now possible on modest personal purchases (Revealed: how 10 joints could lead to 14 years for dealing, June 7).

The problems are most acute with cannabis and ecstasy, for which both limits would penalise most regular users. The limits of 28g of cannabis or 20 tablets proposed by the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs would be more in line with effective current practice by police forces.

The existing law, pre-2005 Drugs Act, was flexible enough to penalise street dealers with small amounts wrapped up, but allow acquittal of regular heavy users who could satisfy the courts that their "bulk-discount" purchases were for their personal use.

As the leading agency in the UK providing expert evidence to the courts in borderline "intent to supply" cases, such new limits could result in an explosion of work, as the vast majority of intent cases are likely to be defended vigorously. That means extra costs both in enforcement and in legal aid, gridlock in the courts, and thousands of ordinary drug users stigmatised as dealers.Matthew Atha Director, Independent Drug Monitoring Unit

Once again this government displays its grotesquely illiberal instincts. The five grams proposal for cannabis is so utterly absurd, it is obviously a piece of New Labour spin designed to make the retreat to one ounce appear a reasonable compromise. But even this is outrageous, the vast majority of people in possession of an ounce of dope are not dealers. The fundamental point, though, is that the right to intoxication is as real as the right to climb mountains - an activity which kills a far higher proportion of practitioners than recreational drug use. It is no business of the state to stop people doing things that hurt only themselves, though it is its business to advise of the dangers.

Prohibition of hard drugs will only make the problem worse, as the success of the Swiss policy of tolerance combined with the message that they are for losers has shown. Cannabis, by contrast, is our least dangerous intoxicant and this government's attack on it smells of a desperate attempt to divert middle England's gaze away from New Labour's internal civil war, domestic incompetence and foreign policy disasters.Joe Morison London

Cannabis, poppy and coca are the best-known herbal sources of psychoactive drugs. But any biochemist will tell you that it is most unlikely that any group of natural products is to be found only in a single species, and that many other drug-containing plant materials are now freely on sale - either as "legal highs" or as plants and seeds. There is no reason to think that these materials are less harmful to the user than those that are legally controlled. Draconian penalties for cannabis possession may encourage young people to experiment with "legal highs" in the mistaken belief that what is not banned must be relatively safe.Andrew Coulson Musselburgh, Midlothian

The prison system is bursting at its seams. Will the government also extend its harsh "bang-'em-up-for-life" remedy to alcoholics and smokers? Such policies benefit both the major drug dealers, who thrive on drugs being illegal, and tobacco and alcohol suppliers. Is any pressure for these proposals coming from any of these three industries?Noel Hodson Oxford

The Home Office appears to distinguish between users and dealers of drugs by amount of possession. Joined-up government policy - whereby those strongly addicted to heroin are provided by the Department of Health with access to manageable dosage, safe manufacture of the drug is aided by the Department for International Development in turning around the Afghan economy, and security is provided by the MoD - could result in lower UK crime.Dr Ian Baker Bristol